Johnson sounds like he's ready to filibuster on Hagel nomination

Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson has just publicly signaled support for a filibuster to delay the confirmation vote on former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel as President Barack Obama's defense secretary. »Read Full Blog Post

While we strive for a lively and vigorous debate of the issues, we do not tolerate name calling, foul language or other inappropriate behavior. Please see our discussion guidelines and terms of use for more information.

While we do our best to moderate comments, we do not screen comments before they are posted. If you see a comment that violates our guidelines, please use the "Report Abuse" link to notify us of the issue.

This Johnson guy would criticize Obama if he ended world hunger, brought about world peace and ushered in a new Era of financial prosperity like the US has never seen.This guy cares nothing for America and only worries about the success of his party.

Both parties vote along party lines on far too many issues. It would be refreshing if elected officials would vote for what they feel is right, and not so much for how their party directs them to vote. As long as special interest money is needed to be competitive in an election, and as long as the parties decide who 'deserves' to benefit from this money, politicians will be beholden to their parties every directive.

"...the fact that no cabinet-level appointee's nomination [has] been filibustered..." coupled with "...support for a filibuster to delay the confirmation vote on former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel" by Republicans.

Republicans are considering taking unprecedented steps to prevent a fellow Republican from a Cabinet positions.

Maybe you guys should consider the possibility that you have taken things just a bit too far? You know, just *maybe*??

I think that generally, the president should get to appoint the aides he or she chooses, unless they are obviously unfit or unqualified (Harriet Meirs, Robert Bork), in which case they will be defeated by a simple up-or-down vote in the Senate.

No, presidential nominees which require Senate consent should be given an up-or-down vote to reflect that consent or lack thereof; a filibuster is NOT a showing of that consent or non-consent, because it is not being done on the basis of simple majority. (Which also means a filibuster on 'advise and consent' is quite likely unconstitutional; but we don't have nearly the time to have that question ajjudicated.)

RE - These are NOT just merely "good old boy" appointments so they can chat over the mens room urinals --- these are appointments that have far reaching and often permanent effects on our nation and the world.......the bummer's appointments have all been questionable ---- he can't stand to put someone in who really knows what they are doing and is committeed to trying to return this nation to greatness.

Yes, Johnson demonstrates that he has reached the level of incompetency(Peter Principal)? Bobby Jindahl, Eric Cantor, you've got Wisconsin's equivalent of Angel in Nevada, the Witch from Wassila and Delaware and the successful Missouri and Indiana GOP US senate primaries all rolled into one. Hell hath no fury like an Oshkosh ignorant who married his way into a fortune and ultimately bought a US Senate Seat. Get hold of this idiot and toilet train him. He has made a mockery of the United States senate and respectable democracy..

So, we have sunk to such a low level of political cooperation and civility that my Senator is actually going to be the first in history to fillibuster a Cabinet appointment? Senator Johnson, you may voice your displeasure with the nomination by voting no. You may voice your displeasure by holding a press conference. You may voice your displeasure by tweeting away to your heart's content. Do not voice your displeasure by holding this appointment hostage, and do not assume that you speak for the entire country.